FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28019
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 28019 Narrative | Narrative |
| 28019 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Improve Stream Habitat by Reducing Discharge from Animal Feeding Operations |
| Proposal ID | 28019 |
| Organization | Idaho State Department of Agriculture / Idaho Office of Species Conservation (ISDA/IOSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | John Chatburn |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 790 Boise, Idaho 83701-0790 |
| Phone / email | 2083328540 / jchatbur@agri.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | John Chatburn |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Enhance tributary and main stem fish habitat and water quality by reducing direct discharge and run-off from Animal Feeding Operations by supporting on-farm improvement with cost-share funding and technical assistance. |
| Target species | Chinook salmon, steelhead trout and bull trout. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.1879 | -113.8891 | Lemhi Watershed (HUC No. 17060204) |
| 44.6923 | -114.0485 | Pahsimeroi Watershed (HUC No. 17060202) |
| 44.2682 | -114.3265 | East Fork of the Salmon River Watershed (HUC No. 17060201) |
| 45.09 | -113.9 | Upper Salmon Watershed (HUC No. 17060201) / Middle Salmon (HUC No. 17060203) |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Habitat RPA Action 149 |
| Habitat RPA Action 150 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| New Project |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199401170 | Idaho Model Watershed Project | RPA Action # 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154 - Habitat protection, restoration, and complexity in Salmon subbasin watersheds. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Identify Operations and establish ongoing baseline monitoring in Salmon subbasin | a. Complete the inventories and locate facilities in Salmon subbasin | a. 1 FY | $50,000 | |
| 1 | b. Assess facilities in Salmon subbasin | b. 1 FY | $50,000 | |
| 1 | c. Establish base-line monitoring data | c. 1 FY | $75,000 | Yes |
| 2. Develop cost-share guidelines and promote program | a. Develop specific guidelines for cost-share program. | a. 1 FY | $10,000 | |
| 2 | b. Design application and contract forms, develop form evaluation process | b. 1 FY | $5,000 | |
| 2 | c. Publicize program to landowners | c. Ongoing | $25,000 | |
| 3. Assist in design of projects, accept applications for projects and select projects | a. Provide technical assistance for project designs and accept applications from landowners | a. 1 FY | $160,000 | |
| 3 | b. Evaluate projects, prioritize and select those to receive funding | b. 1FY | $20,000 | |
| 3 | c. Legal review of projects and contracts | c. 1FY | $0 | |
| 3 | d. Sign contracts with landowners | d. 1 FY | $0 | |
| 3 | e. Report on projects selected and expected results | e. 1 FY | $6,000 | |
| . | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Implement projects | a. Monitor on-farm construction and check installation b. Certify project completion and that Idaho Department of Agriculture standards are met c. Provide technical assistance from ISDA for operation of improvement including operation management | 1FY | $50,000 | |
| 2. Project oversight and administration | a. Verify project costs with landowner b. Voucher project costs and reimburse landowners with cost share dollars c. Distribute funds to subcontractor | 1FY | $1,500,000 | |
| 3. Coordinate with Nez Perce Tribe | a. Funds for Tribe to coordinate with ISDA | 1FY | $75,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All costs for monitoring and evaluation will be borne by the landowner and cooperating agencies with no cost to BPA. | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 3 | $150,000 |
| Fringe | (Benefits are 33% of salary) | $50,000 |
| Supplies | Supplies, computers, engineering equipment, etc | $46,000 |
| Travel | Lease vehicles, fuel, perdiem, lodging, etc. | $30,000 |
| Indirect | $100,000 | |
| Capital | 70% match for cost share grants | $1,500,000 |
| Subcontractor | IDEQ for baseline monitoring | $75,000 |
| Other | Nez Perce Tribe for coordination with ISDA | $75,000 |
| $2,026,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $2,026,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $2,026,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Idaho Department of Agriculture | Supplemental support functions and ongoing monitoring of cost-share funded projects | $230,000 | in-kind |
| 2. Idaho Soil Conservation Commission | Cooperating in guidelines and application form creation, coordination of outreach meetings and dissemination of materials | $20,000 | in-kind |
| 3. University of Idaho/Extension Service | Identification of CAFOs, dissemination of materials, and providing technical assistance | $50,000 | in-kind |
| 4. Idaho Cattle Association | Coordinating outreach meetings, and dissemination of materials | $10,000 | in-kind |
| 5. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality | Identification of projects, provide existing water quality data, inform interested publics of benefits and values, and ongoing monitoring of water quality benefits from projects | $60,000 | in-kind |
| 6. Idaho Department of Water Resources | Identification of projects, provide hydrologic data, and inform interested publics of benefits and values | $20,000 | in-kind |
| 7. Army Corps of Engineers | Evaluate, plan, and implement projects, and inform interested publics of benefits and values | $10,000 | in-kind |
| 8. Bureau of Reclamation | Provide data and inform interested publics of benefits and values | $10,000 | in-kind |
| 9. Idaho Department of Fish and Game | Perform ongoing regional fish monitoring activities | $40,000 | in-kind |
| 10. Landowners | 30% match for cost share funding of AFO impact mitigation | $500,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed. This proposal is a request for funds to identify feed lots that degrade local water quality. The proposal is similar to several others that request funds for an activity that has no specific objectives other than identifying and fixing problems. There is no informational support provided for a contention that these sites pose further threat for endangered salmon. Plans for survey and prioritization of projects are needed. Biological problems need to be identified and justification given that injuries to fish and fish habitat are occurring. Is the problem sediments? Temperature? Nutrients? They would address run-off and streambank degradation issues.Are there USDA programs, e.g. the CRP and CREP programs to provide fenced buffers along streams, that could be brought to bear to help solve the anticipated problems? What are the perceived magnitudes of the problems and what are some of the proposed solutions? What are the estimated benefits to water quality that would come from completion of this assessment and enrollment of local livestock owners into this program?
Comment:
Sponsors suggest that the proposed work will provide the tool needed to reach the private landowners, a tool that is currently absent. Based on experience elsewhere in Idaho, the sponsors indicated that $10,000-20,000/feedlot would be required to implement the prescribed corrective measures; however, the sponsors are unsure of the number of unregulated feed lots that would require corrective measures in the Salmon River subbasin and thus are unable to calculate the reduction of inputs that will occur until the cattle operations are identified. Based on conversations with the owners of the cattle operations, the sponsors anticipate the ability to address approximately 80% of the unregulated sites. Because the number of feedlots that may need corrective measures is unknown, the reviewers expressed concern whether the requested amount would be enough to correct all the identified operations. The sponsors indicated that they were unsure if the requested amount would be sufficient but also suggested that the funding request may exceed their needs. The sponsors indicated that there are no out-year costs associated with the proposed work since landowners and other programs are responsible for maintenance costs. Reviewers questioned why a needs assessment was not proposed as the first step for this proposed project. The sponsors suggested that implementing an assessment process could disturb the synergy that exists among the existing regulatory programs. The sponsors further stated that the Governor of Idaho has asked what actions could be taken relative to livestock that would immediately benefit fish and wildlife. The sponsors indicted that the fencing of unregulated feedlots is considered the best solution to addressing livestock induced problems. Although monitoring was not identified in the proposal, monitoring activities will be performed through other ongoing programs. The reviewers suggest there this a lack of coordination and believe the prioritization process could be enhanced through coordination with the state and tribes. The managers acknowledge that if the right operations are selected the tagged species will significantly benefit from the activity. Until the reviewers can be assured the work occurs in areas that the managers have identified as key areas, the reviewers are unable to recommend the proposal as a high priority. The reviewers suggest that through the TMDL process there is EPA money for this type of activity. Furthermore, reviewers question the benefit/cost issue and subsequently believe the proposed work appears expensive and are concerned about the ability to achieve the proposed goals in a timely manner.Comment:
Not fundable. This proposal is a request for funds to identify streamside animal feeding operations and to improve water quality and fish habitat by funding 70% of the cost of remedial actions for landowners, especially those with smaller herds. The proposal is similar to several others that request funds for an activity that has no specific objectives other than identifying and fixing problems.On the other hand, the ISRP agrees the problem of animal feeding operations in the Salmon subbasin is real in a biological sense and notes a similar observation from the CBFWA reviewers. Also "real" is landowner apprehension regarding the threat of "taking" fish listed under ESA if their operations are found to cause impact. However, the ISRP agrees with CBFWA reviewers that it is important to target those feeding operations that pose the greatest problems in key portions of the subbasin where fish would benefit the most. As written, the proposal does not do that and specific actions are not identified, making it impossible for reviewers to support the proposal in its current form.
The ISRP recommends that projects dealing with animal feeding operations in the Upper Salmon basin be considered for funding as part of Project #199202603 and related proposals submitted by the Custer and Lemhi Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Those projects either have or are developing criteria for effective prioritization of projects for benefit of fish in the subbasin. The ISRP recommends that the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project give priority to identifying key feeding operations and to coordinating remediation with their owners and with the ISDA and IOSC and other funding sources.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUPotential indirect benefits to anadromous fish through the reduction of direct discharge and run-off from Animal Feeding Operations. However, proposal does not indicate specific actions or locations or actions so benefits can't be evaluated further.
Comments
No specific RPA covers water quality alone. The proposal does not provide any information on what BMPs will be implemented, where, when, and the likely effect on water quality or salmonids. This proposal has been submitted to BPA for funding previously under the High Priority solicitation. NMFS did not support funding it under that process and the Council and BPA deferred it to the Mountain Snake Provincial Review and told the project proponents to revise and further flesh out the proposal. Project proponents have not significantly revised or expanded the proposal and are not even certain that the work will take place in anadromous drainages. That will depend on willing landowners. This proposal does not meet the FCRPS BiOp RPAs and appears to be more appropriately funded through other sources such as agricultural or Clean Water Act programs.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No
Comment:
Do not recommend. This project appears to propose BPA funding of Idaho State Department of Agriculture's responsibility under state legislation. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--
Comment: